quote出嚟嗰段咪係囉
我get到巴打意思了
俾recover出黎個d料誤導左sor
姐係呢單就算冇三次元cp
都可以因為二次元charge佢9星期
屌咁真係可以成個動物台拉哂去坐
動漫最可怕之處係，你好撚難估佢幾歲。
其實港女都係，明明20+，但冇波冇蘿，成個人好似未發育咁。
二次元好似認波唔認人, 你設定佢100歲都冇用
仲要曾經管有都死
套H漫 / H動是但一個角色似蘿你就
二次元呢D咁虛無都可入罪，講真同800年前條莫須有一撚樣。
如果立法原意係保護未成年人, 咁二次元點解都要入罪, 作甜故嗰啲又使唔使拉
係香港先有呢D沒有受害人都可以入罪既惡法。
其他先進地方邊敢過，呢D惡法，惡劣如日本，都因為抗議而取消。
早幾闈比人突擊你女朋友就比D黑警睇哂
1 點幾 地鐵站 兩架車
搞左我兩個幾鐘
Btw 佢唔係我面前check 我電話有無得告
睇完我電話仲要係到講 我拍埋咁多片 安全咩
講緊我拍我同女朋友個啲
唔知有冇copy
佢冇warrant 都可以check你電話
動漫最可怕之處係，你好撚難估佢幾歲。
其實港女都係，明明20+，但冇波冇蘿，成個人好似未發育咁。
二次元好似認波唔認人, 你設定佢100歲都冇用
仲要曾經管有都死
套H漫 / H動是但一個角色似蘿你就
二次元呢D咁虛無都可入罪，講真同800年前條莫須有一撚樣。
如果立法原意係保護未成年人, 咁二次元點解都要入罪, 作甜故嗰啲又使唔使拉
係香港先有呢D沒有受害人都可以入罪既惡法。
其他先進地方邊敢過，呢D惡法，惡劣如日本，都因為抗議而取消。
上面單案例係順手告埋卡通
淨係告卡通兒童色情既喺香港唔常見//真係會儲存幾千項兒童真相/真片既人好少會儲埋卡通, 我估可能覺得卡通唔真實掛
的確, 如果差佬有心捉人, 好多人都犯哂法
"冇受害人"喺香港黎講唔係開脫理由, d官話下載=支持班製作者繼續搞兒童色情, 所以都要嚴懲下載管有既人
http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86744&QS=%28%7B%E5%85%92%E7%AB%A5%E8%89%B2%E6%83%85%7D+%25charge%29&TP=RV
Preliminary examination
40. The computer was seized on the 15 April 2010 and first examined by PC3379 (PW4), the expert, on the 23 April 2010 when he performed the process of ‘Forensic Image Acquisition’ by using computer forensics software “EnCase” (see paragraph 4, exhibit P8),
41. When PC 58917 examined the computer at the home of the defendant on the 15 April 2010 he used a programme called “SPADA” which had been designed specifically for forensic examination. Using the image search function of “SPADA” no child pornographic images were found. In cross-examination PC 58917 explained that as the “SPADA” programme was designed several years ago and no updates had been provided, “SPADA” may not be able to access everything on the computer. This was because the “SPADA” programme may not be completely compatible with the hardware of more recent computers resulting in “SPADA” not being able to read all the data on the computer.
42. PC 58917 told the court that although he was aware at the time of his examination of the shortcomings of “SPADA” he made no record of this in his witness statement or in the investigation report. PC 58917 said he thought this was not necessary and in answer to the court explained his witness statement was mainly to record what operation he carried out.
43. Mr Wong submits the failure to record “SPADA” has not been updated and therefore may be the reason why no child pornography was found on the computer during the preliminary examination invites grave suspicion that the child pornography may have found their way onto the computer after the examination by PC 58917 (see paragraph 11 of the written submission of Mr Wong). I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission.
44. I accept the evidence of PC 3379 that “SPADA” permitted only a preliminary examination, whereas the software “EnCase” has more powerful functions and permits a more detailed examination. I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the child pornography was on the computer at the time of seizure on the 15 April 2010. Whilst surprising the police used an old software programme with known shortcomings to conduct the preliminary examination the fact that PC 58917 did not find any child pornography during the preliminary examination and did not record in his witness statement the shortcomings of “SPADA” as the possible reason for this do not cause me to doubt this is the only inference to draw.
http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86744&QS=%28%7B%E5%85%92%E7%AB%A5%E8%89%B2%E6%83%85%7D+%25charge%29&TP=RV
Preliminary examination
40. The computer was seized on the 15 April 2010 and first examined by PC3379 (PW4), the expert, on the 23 April 2010 when he performed the process of ‘Forensic Image Acquisition’ by using computer forensics software “EnCase” (see paragraph 4, exhibit P8),
41. When PC 58917 examined the computer at the home of the defendant on the 15 April 2010 he used a programme called “SPADA” which had been designed specifically for forensic examination. Using the image search function of “SPADA” no child pornographic images were found. In cross-examination PC 58917 explained that as the “SPADA” programme was designed several years ago and no updates had been provided, “SPADA” may not be able to access everything on the computer. This was because the “SPADA” programme may not be completely compatible with the hardware of more recent computers resulting in “SPADA” not being able to read all the data on the computer.
42. PC 58917 told the court that although he was aware at the time of his examination of the shortcomings of “SPADA” he made no record of this in his witness statement or in the investigation report. PC 58917 said he thought this was not necessary and in answer to the court explained his witness statement was mainly to record what operation he carried out.
43. Mr Wong submits the failure to record “SPADA” has not been updated and therefore may be the reason why no child pornography was found on the computer during the preliminary examination invites grave suspicion that the child pornography may have found their way onto the computer after the examination by PC 58917 (see paragraph 11 of the written submission of Mr Wong). I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission.
44. I accept the evidence of PC 3379 that “SPADA” permitted only a preliminary examination, whereas the software “EnCase” has more powerful functions and permits a more detailed examination. I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the child pornography was on the computer at the time of seizure on the 15 April 2010. Whilst surprising the police used an old software programme with known shortcomings to conduct the preliminary examination the fact that PC 58917 did not find any child pornography during the preliminary examination and did not record in his witness statement the shortcomings of “SPADA” as the possible reason for this do not cause me to doubt this is the only inference to draw.
十五號扣電腦係被告屋企用S軟件搵唔到證據
廿三號用E軟件搵到
係咪cp係法官目測條女幾歲
通常告得係h動都計落去， 跟住法官就堆砌，報紙話搜到幾千張咪呢d
有冇方法保障自己
利申：正常性取向 但好撚驚吳中副車
http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86744&QS=%28%7B%E5%85%92%E7%AB%A5%E8%89%B2%E6%83%85%7D+%25charge%29&TP=RV
Preliminary examination
40. The computer was seized on the 15 April 2010 and first examined by PC3379 (PW4), the expert, on the 23 April 2010 when he performed the process of ‘Forensic Image Acquisition’ by using computer forensics software “EnCase” (see paragraph 4, exhibit P8),
41. When PC 58917 examined the computer at the home of the defendant on the 15 April 2010 he used a programme called “SPADA” which had been designed specifically for forensic examination. Using the image search function of “SPADA” no child pornographic images were found. In cross-examination PC 58917 explained that as the “SPADA” programme was designed several years ago and no updates had been provided, “SPADA” may not be able to access everything on the computer. This was because the “SPADA” programme may not be completely compatible with the hardware of more recent computers resulting in “SPADA” not being able to read all the data on the computer.
42. PC 58917 told the court that although he was aware at the time of his examination of the shortcomings of “SPADA” he made no record of this in his witness statement or in the investigation report. PC 58917 said he thought this was not necessary and in answer to the court explained his witness statement was mainly to record what operation he carried out.
43. Mr Wong submits the failure to record “SPADA” has not been updated and therefore may be the reason why no child pornography was found on the computer during the preliminary examination invites grave suspicion that the child pornography may have found their way onto the computer after the examination by PC 58917 (see paragraph 11 of the written submission of Mr Wong). I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission.
44. I accept the evidence of PC 3379 that “SPADA” permitted only a preliminary examination, whereas the software “EnCase” has more powerful functions and permits a more detailed examination. I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the child pornography was on the computer at the time of seizure on the 15 April 2010. Whilst surprising the police used an old software programme with known shortcomings to conduct the preliminary examination the fact that PC 58917 did not find any child pornography during the preliminary examination and did not record in his witness statement the shortcomings of “SPADA” as the possible reason for this do not cause me to doubt this is the only inference to draw.
十五號扣電腦係被告屋企用S軟件搵唔到證據
廿三號用E軟件搵到
之後有討論埋會喺部機被差佬收走後有冇人(差佬/hacker)刻意放落去
呢單野值得睇下, 好多高連登仔都關心呢樣所謂"被屈"既情況
呢單野值得睇下, 好多高連登仔都關心呢樣所謂"被屈"既情況
http://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=86744&QS=%28%7B%E5%85%92%E7%AB%A5%E8%89%B2%E6%83%85%7D+%25charge%29&TP=RV
Preliminary examination
40. The computer was seized on the 15 April 2010 and first examined by PC3379 (PW4), the expert, on the 23 April 2010 when he performed the process of ‘Forensic Image Acquisition’ by using computer forensics software “EnCase” (see paragraph 4, exhibit P8),
41. When PC 58917 examined the computer at the home of the defendant on the 15 April 2010 he used a programme called “SPADA” which had been designed specifically for forensic examination. Using the image search function of “SPADA” no child pornographic images were found. In cross-examination PC 58917 explained that as the “SPADA” programme was designed several years ago and no updates had been provided, “SPADA” may not be able to access everything on the computer. This was because the “SPADA” programme may not be completely compatible with the hardware of more recent computers resulting in “SPADA” not being able to read all the data on the computer.
42. PC 58917 told the court that although he was aware at the time of his examination of the shortcomings of “SPADA” he made no record of this in his witness statement or in the investigation report. PC 58917 said he thought this was not necessary and in answer to the court explained his witness statement was mainly to record what operation he carried out.
43. Mr Wong submits the failure to record “SPADA” has not been updated and therefore may be the reason why no child pornography was found on the computer during the preliminary examination invites grave suspicion that the child pornography may have found their way onto the computer after the examination by PC 58917 (see paragraph 11 of the written submission of Mr Wong). I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission.
44. I accept the evidence of PC 3379 that “SPADA” permitted only a preliminary examination, whereas the software “EnCase” has more powerful functions and permits a more detailed examination. I am satisfied so I am sure the only inference to draw is that the child pornography was on the computer at the time of seizure on the 15 April 2010. Whilst surprising the police used an old software programme with known shortcomings to conduct the preliminary examination the fact that PC 58917 did not find any child pornography during the preliminary examination and did not record in his witness statement the shortcomings of “SPADA” as the possible reason for this do not cause me to doubt this is the only inference to draw.
十五號扣電腦係被告屋企用S軟件搵唔到證據
廿三號用E軟件搵到
之後有討論埋會喺部機被差佬收走後有冇人(差佬/hacker)刻意放落去
呢單野值得睇下, 好多高連登仔都關心呢樣所謂"被屈"既情況
簡單黎講係真係有？
呢單野值得睇下, 好多高連登仔都關心呢樣所謂"被屈"既情況
最後點判
睇唔明
同埋呢單野部機被差佬收走左之後就冇退還過, 辯方都check唔到d乜, 個專家證人好似都冇機會拎部機去check
所以, 唔係咁易架
咁如果加密左c盤 即係開機要password 咁會點
咁如果加密左c盤 即係開機要password 咁會點
開機要PW就係加密左?
有冇方法保障自己
利申：正常性取向 但好撚驚吳中副車
唔好打j
咁如果加密左c盤 即係開機要password 咁會點
你大陸人?有冇方法保障自己
利申：正常性取向 但好撚驚吳中副車
唔好打j
用ADBlock
